In today's editorial, the WashPost accuses Harry Reid of undermining national security for political gain:
There's no guarantee that Mr. Bush can agree with Congress on those points or that he will make the effort to do so. But a Democratic strategy of trying to use Iraq as a polarizing campaign issue and as a club against moderate Republicans who are up for reelection will certainly have the effect of making consensus impossible -- and deepening the trouble for Iraq and for American security.Read the whole thing and check more from Blue Crab and Sister Toldjah.
9 comments:
...a Democratic strategy of trying to use Iraq as a polarizing campaign issue and as a club against moderate Republicans who are up for reelection will certainly have the effect of making consensus impossible -- and deepening the trouble for Iraq and for American security
Is this the WaPo, or the Onion?
70 months of "using Iraq as a polarizing campaign issue," and the Post edit board has only just noticed this dynamic at play ("a Democratic strategy," mind you!) this summer?
Their chilling assessment about the way things have changed will be taken with all the seriousness it deserves.
You can also check more from Hullaballoo:
How would delaying a vote in order to placate the Republicans be any different than "stalling it on partisan grounds?"...
...How many limbs is it OK for our troops to lose while Mitch McConnell figures out how to save face?...
...How much deeper should we dig the hole we're in before the Washington Post decides it's no longer "irresponsible" for Harry Reid to make life awkward for Bush's minions?
Then, check out Devilstower:
You can't really say that Republicans haven't been plotting a strategy on Iraq. Not for removal of the troops, for avoidance of blame.
There had already been plenty of dress rehearsals for an updated Dolchstosslegende, one in which every theme around "we would have won, too, if it hadn't been for those cowardly Dems" could be recycled, expanded, and used as part of the umbrage to drive the next war. But with yesterday's Washington Post editorial, the Republican exit strategy from blame went into a new phase of rapid withdrawal.
What the Republicans -- and the Post -- are trying to sell now is the idea that, despite having called Democrats every imaginable name for even considering the idea, having used every possible procedural dodge, and having continued to toss a wrench into the works of every sign of progress, Republicans were just about to make a deal...
...In other words, if Democrats hadn't pushed so hard for getting the troops out, Republicans would have gotten the troops out, despite passing on every previous opportunity... Apparently you can be frustrated that someone won't let you do something you didn't intend to do in the first place.
And then, check out McJoan:
"The country has made up its mind: a majority support withdrawal (phased or not). It seems that whoever wrote [the WaPo editorial] is more confused.
That's the crux of it, isn't it? The country has made up its mind. And it made up its mind by ignoring the conventional wisdom of the D.C. punditocracy.
And who is right there with the public? Harry Reid.
The D.C. cocktail weenie crowd has concentrated their venom on Harry Reid for the last six months. They've attacked him more viciously than anyone and given the architects of this debacle a relative pass.
Why this rampage against him? Because he's ignored them and in doing so, he's made them largely irrelevant to the debate. He has rejected their politics of the fear of the negative and has focused on the fact that we've lost and the only good option left is a responsible withdrawal.
He's effectively changed the public debate about the war. Notice that no one is seriously arguing the merits of withdrawal anymore in the public sphere, other than this handful of war supporters who for far too long have held sway inside the Beltway. But now, largely thanks to Reid and his ongoing efforts, the debate has shifted to how we're going to get out of Iraq, and when.
Yes, brave brave Harry Reid, standing against the Washington establishment to do what's right.
And then he and Nancy Pelosi passed the war funding bill.
But with reservations, to be sure!
Remind me again what difference it makes that the Democrats won Congress?
Sweet circular logic there, Tex. If the Dems vote for funding, they're meaningless. And if they vote against it, they're "making consensus impossible"!
And that would be so totally excellent... if only GOP talking points were selling anymore.
Remind me again what difference it makes that the Democrats won Congress?
What difference does it make? Seriously?
What difference has there been in the GOP's run of luck, just in the last six months? What conservative goal currently has a hope of being realized?
The Democratic Congress is going nowhere, for at least another cycle. What difference will it make? Don't worry: you'll be reminded again... and again... and again.
"The Democratic Congress is going nowhere, for at least another cycle. What difference will it make? Don't worry: you'll be reminded again... and again... and again"
Way to disabuse me of the notion that the Democrats act only for political purposes.
Hey remember when John Kerry was your nominee because he was the "most electable"? Good times.
Way to disabuse me of the notion that the Democrats act only for political purposes.
Is this for real? After 7 years of Bush & Rove & Cheney & Co., you're going to boo-hoo about acting "only for political purposes"?
"Political purposes" is supposed to be the ultimate conversation squelcher when it comes to firing U.S. attorneys (he was 100% within his rights!)... while simultaneously being Exhibit A of unprincipled Democratic fecklessness? Sweet circular logic, Tex!
Hey remember when John Kerry was your nominee because he was the "most electable"?
Hey remember when you seriously anticipated a future with a "permanent Republican majority"? Hey remember when Howard Dean was going to sink what was left of the DNC? Hey remember that Sunday morning when you woke up and Saddam had been caught and Baghdad was ours and you were so happy to be a Republican? Was that 3 years ago, or was it 30?
Your side's only p.o.'d because (unlike the foredoomed, reactive "running scared" Kerry nomination) the Democrats have ceased being the flinching punchtoys you used to enjoy. 2003-04 really WAS "good times" for you, I don't doubt it. But like a former high school star athlete, it's looking like you're going to have to take your sustenance from precious memories for awhile.
Speaking of athletics, what you'll be "reminded of again and again" for the next 3-to-? years isn't merely the wrong end of a football score (Dems 51, Reps 49). It will be the repercussions for past GOP actions. The thwarting and peeling back of coverups. Punishment for ineptitude and hubris, whether it's legal punishment or electoral. The sudden Payment Due, after having ditched your genuine conservative ideals and integrity for a red map and a rah-rah election win.
And even, once in a while, just maybe, the unheard-of bombshell that, unbeknownst to anyone, rogue Republicans may have, once or twice, in a weak moment, acted only for political purposes.
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/obstructionist_GOP.jpg
How many Republicans would root for the "nuclear option" today?
Post a Comment